May 14, 2025 • 10 mins
Trump isn’t the only president to attempt to use the economy to maintain or achieve peace, however he’s proven to be the most successful at doing it.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Brian Mudshow podcast is driven by Braymanmotor Cars. My
family is a Brayman Motor Cars family. Your family should
be to visit Braymanmotorcars dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
You have questions, Brian has answers. It's time for today's
Q and A of today. This is the Brian Mudshow. Yeah,
Today's Q and A.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Trump's use of economics to de escalate worldwide tensions. This
is brought to you by me and listen ashes check
mark collections. Each day I feature a listener questions sent
by one of these methods. You may email me Brian
Mudd at iHeartMedia dot com, hind me up on social
at Brian Mudradio. You may also use the iHeartRadio talk
back feature. Just go to WJNO or viro Patriot inside
(00:47):
of the iHeartRadio app. And once you have done this
you can access all kinds of great things for free
like us anywhere, anytime, on demand. And so for that reason,
we would love it if you made us your number
one preset, and then the Brian Mudshow Podcast my podcast
your number two preset. That would be awesome. And while
you're in there, you'll see a little microphone button. See
(01:08):
it tap it. You main lay down a message right there,
maybe for a future Q and A just like this one.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Hello, Brian, this is great from Port Saint Lucie, Florida.
I was just wondering about your take on the India
and Pakistan situation. Do you believe that this could turn
into an existential problem that may cause the United States
(01:35):
to have to interfere? Thank you, listen to you every day.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Yeah, appreciate it. Good stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
And in the grand scheme of geopolitical concerns on our radar,
allow the new access powers of China, Russia, Ron Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua,
et cetera. I don't know that anybody really had an
India Pakistan nuclear war under Bingo guard, right, I mean,
like that wasn't the thing most people were out there
(02:01):
being concerned about if you're going to be concerned about something.
But for those who may not know, the impetus behind
the current India Pakistan conflict not new, not new. It's
just an escalation of something that started after World War
II and what is known as the Partition of nineteen
forty seven. So just after World War Two, the conflict
(02:24):
between the two countries began with the partition of British India.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
So the England said we're out. England had been over there.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
They're like, we're getting out, and so we're going to
turn this into two independent states. We will have India
and Pakistan. And they did this based on religious lines.
India is predominantly Hindu, Pakistan predominantly Musslim.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
This led to mass migrations.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
There was communal violence during this period, the displacement of millions,
and so you had all these ongoing tensions that really
have never stopped. It's just beyond again off against skirmishes.
In fact, the last time something arrived at the level
of like military type violence was in twenty twenty one.
It just wasn't as big as what happened most recently
(03:13):
with missiles flying around. So the recent flare up in
the India Pakistan conflict was triggered by a terrorist attack
on April twenty second in an Indian administered territory. The
attack was claimed initially by the Resistance Front. This is
an offshoot of a Pakistan based terror group and it
killed twenty seven people. India accused Pakistan of supporting the attack, saying, hey,
(03:39):
this is state sponsored basically, which Pakistan denied. The escalation
included a series of missile attacks leading to a total
of sixty six deaths preceding the Trump administration broker seatsfire
agreement late last week. And that's kind of a good
place to pick up with today's question, pretending to mind
level of concern regarding the conflict between the two countries
(04:02):
and whether the US would need to get involved in general,
this is important to know. Pakistan is a bad actor.
Pakistan is a problem. While it's debatable about whether there's
state sponsored terrorism or not, what is known is that
they at least tolerate Islamic tear within their country. You know,
(04:22):
aside from the current day issues with the TRF, Let's
not forget that it was Pakistan where Osama bin Laden
was able to hide out for about six years preceding
the elimination of the nine to eleven Mastermind by Sealed
Team six. Notably the Pakistani population and their problematic as well.
(04:42):
What I found to be most instructive on this topic
the Pew Research Center after bin Laden was taken out.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
So it's twenty twelve. Walk you back to twenty twelve.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Pew Research Center goes into Pakistan and starts interviewing Pakistani people,
and it was pretty eye opening with they found following
the killing of Ben Laden. What percentage of the Pakistani
people do you believe or thought that the US operation
(05:13):
was a good thing in the country. How many Pakistanis
thought Sealed Team six going in to get Ben Lauden
was a good thing?
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Yeah, and I would guess pretty low, like maybe thirty percent.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
You divide that by three and you've got your answer
ten percent. Only one in ten Pakistanis said yeah, uh,
Seal Team six going and taken out of some have
been Altan is good. And so Pew tried to provide
maximum benefit of the doubt. They followed up with a
question saying, Okay, well, maybe it's because they didn't want
(05:50):
the US military in their.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Country doing anything.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
So what about just Osama bin Laden no longer being around,
forget how it happened, just Osama in Laden not being around?
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Do you think that's a good thing. I would say
the numbers a bit higher than the ten, maybe twenty percent.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Okay, yeah, it's fourteen, so only four percent of more
people are like yeah, So that's it. Providing maximum benefit
of the doubt to the Pakistani people. Only fourteen percent
thought that Osama bin Laden being gone was a good thing.
What does that tell you about them? You know, it's
kind of the same thing with the Palestinians, right, you'll
(06:31):
have the oh.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
They're innocent victims. No they're not.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
They voted for Hamas, They're overwhelmingly supportive of Hamas. They
are terrorist sympathizers. Three and three. There are no victims
in Palestine. That doesn't exist. Same deal with the pakistanis
they are overwhelmingly supporters of Islamic terr their government situations
(06:55):
more stable than some other countries, but only to a point.
For these reasons, it is concerning anytime we're talking about war,
especially with potential nuclear implications involved with people who are
wired this way. On the other hand, Donald Trump is
no Joe Bidener for that matter, George W. Bush Now,
rather than US military intervention, prisident, Trump believes in the
(07:17):
use of economic needs to achieve policy objectives, and unlike
his predecessor, he's actually good at doing it. It was
no mistake that Donald Trump, during its first term, was
the only post World War II president to preside over
our time which there was not any escalation of conflict
anywhere in the world. That is his preferred position. He
was loud about this in Saudi Arabia again yesterday. And
(07:38):
while he's willing to use the full military capabilities of
the United States to achieve peace if needed, as we know,
he ascribes to the philosophy of peace through strength, and yes,
that means having a strong, incapable military, but it also
means having a strong and thriving economy that the rest
of the world needs to maintain their own economy. So
Trump isn't the only president to try to use the
(07:59):
economy to make Tanner a chief piece, but he has
been the most successful we've ever seen it. Deployment, for example,
the reason that Biden failed miserably to prevent the Russian
invasion of Ukraine through sanctions. Remember he said they're not
going to do it because we'll do all these sanctions,
and then Russia did it, and so he did sanctions,
(08:20):
and then Russia kept going and he did more and
it just never worked. The reason for that is if
Russia was like, we don't care. The only thing they
care about is how much they can sell their energy for.
And because of the war and also Biden inflation, oil
became a lot more pricey, and so they could sell
their oil for a lot more and they didn't care
if they weren't selling it to US or other places.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
They signed a deal with China.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
China would buy everything that Russia could produce, and in fact,
Russia became richer as a result of the war than
they had ever been before because China had this relationship
with them. And last year they set records. Russia set
records for what they did with China. So that's the
(09:05):
reason to fail. Trump doesn't play that game. What Trump
does when he is going to use economic means is like, look,
if we're going to target a country, if you're another
country that does business with that country, we're going to
tear if the heck out of you, or we're just
not going to do business with you, And that stops
them from going down that path. That's what's different here,
(09:26):
and that is effectively what Trump did and brokering the ceasefire,
it's like, look, you guys, don't cut this crap, then
you know we're going to use tariffs and you guys
are going to be starved out here. And so that
is the credibility that comes along with somebody who knows
what they're doing, and also is willing to deploy those means.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
And so I know.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
The skirmish, the history there, that's going to get better
anytime soon. But I am far less concerned about an
escalation with them than I would be if Biden were president,
for example, that's for sure,
The Brian Mudshow podcast is driven by Braymanmotor Cars. My
family is a Brayman Motor Cars family. Your family should
be to visit Braymanmotorcars dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
You have questions, Brian has answers. It's time for today's
Q and A of today. This is the Brian Mudshow. Yeah,
Today's Q and A.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Trump's use of economics to de escalate worldwide tensions. This
is brought to you by me and listen ashes check
mark collections. Each day I feature a listener questions sent
by one of these methods. You may email me Brian
Mudd at iHeartMedia dot com, hind me up on social
at Brian Mudradio. You may also use the iHeartRadio talk
back feature. Just go to WJNO or viro Patriot inside
(00:47):
of the iHeartRadio app. And once you have done this
you can access all kinds of great things for free
like us anywhere, anytime, on demand. And so for that reason,
we would love it if you made us your number
one preset, and then the Brian Mudshow Podcast my podcast
your number two preset. That would be awesome. And while
you're in there, you'll see a little microphone button. See
(01:08):
it tap it. You main lay down a message right there,
maybe for a future Q and A just like this one.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Hello, Brian, this is great from Port Saint Lucie, Florida.
I was just wondering about your take on the India
and Pakistan situation. Do you believe that this could turn
into an existential problem that may cause the United States
(01:35):
to have to interfere? Thank you, listen to you every day.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Yeah, appreciate it. Good stuff.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
And in the grand scheme of geopolitical concerns on our radar,
allow the new access powers of China, Russia, Ron Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua,
et cetera. I don't know that anybody really had an
India Pakistan nuclear war under Bingo guard, right, I mean,
like that wasn't the thing most people were out there
(02:01):
being concerned about if you're going to be concerned about something.
But for those who may not know, the impetus behind
the current India Pakistan conflict not new, not new. It's
just an escalation of something that started after World War
II and what is known as the Partition of nineteen
forty seven. So just after World War Two, the conflict
(02:24):
between the two countries began with the partition of British India.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
So the England said we're out. England had been over there.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
They're like, we're getting out, and so we're going to
turn this into two independent states. We will have India
and Pakistan. And they did this based on religious lines.
India is predominantly Hindu, Pakistan predominantly Musslim.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
This led to mass migrations.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
There was communal violence during this period, the displacement of millions,
and so you had all these ongoing tensions that really
have never stopped. It's just beyond again off against skirmishes.
In fact, the last time something arrived at the level
of like military type violence was in twenty twenty one.
It just wasn't as big as what happened most recently
(03:13):
with missiles flying around. So the recent flare up in
the India Pakistan conflict was triggered by a terrorist attack
on April twenty second in an Indian administered territory. The
attack was claimed initially by the Resistance Front. This is
an offshoot of a Pakistan based terror group and it
killed twenty seven people. India accused Pakistan of supporting the attack, saying, hey,
(03:39):
this is state sponsored basically, which Pakistan denied. The escalation
included a series of missile attacks leading to a total
of sixty six deaths preceding the Trump administration broker seatsfire
agreement late last week. And that's kind of a good
place to pick up with today's question, pretending to mind
level of concern regarding the conflict between the two countries
(04:02):
and whether the US would need to get involved in general,
this is important to know. Pakistan is a bad actor.
Pakistan is a problem. While it's debatable about whether there's
state sponsored terrorism or not, what is known is that
they at least tolerate Islamic tear within their country. You know,
(04:22):
aside from the current day issues with the TRF, Let's
not forget that it was Pakistan where Osama bin Laden
was able to hide out for about six years preceding
the elimination of the nine to eleven Mastermind by Sealed
Team six. Notably the Pakistani population and their problematic as well.
(04:42):
What I found to be most instructive on this topic
the Pew Research Center after bin Laden was taken out.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
So it's twenty twelve. Walk you back to twenty twelve.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
Pew Research Center goes into Pakistan and starts interviewing Pakistani people,
and it was pretty eye opening with they found following
the killing of Ben Laden. What percentage of the Pakistani
people do you believe or thought that the US operation
(05:13):
was a good thing in the country. How many Pakistanis
thought Sealed Team six going in to get Ben Lauden
was a good thing?
Speaker 2 (05:22):
Yeah, and I would guess pretty low, like maybe thirty percent.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
You divide that by three and you've got your answer
ten percent. Only one in ten Pakistanis said yeah, uh,
Seal Team six going and taken out of some have
been Altan is good. And so Pew tried to provide
maximum benefit of the doubt. They followed up with a
question saying, Okay, well, maybe it's because they didn't want
(05:50):
the US military in their.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Country doing anything.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
So what about just Osama bin Laden no longer being around,
forget how it happened, just Osama in Laden not being around?
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Do you think that's a good thing. I would say
the numbers a bit higher than the ten, maybe twenty percent.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
Okay, yeah, it's fourteen, so only four percent of more
people are like yeah, So that's it. Providing maximum benefit
of the doubt to the Pakistani people. Only fourteen percent
thought that Osama bin Laden being gone was a good thing.
What does that tell you about them? You know, it's
kind of the same thing with the Palestinians, right, you'll
(06:31):
have the oh.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
They're innocent victims. No they're not.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
They voted for Hamas, They're overwhelmingly supportive of Hamas. They
are terrorist sympathizers. Three and three. There are no victims
in Palestine. That doesn't exist. Same deal with the pakistanis
they are overwhelmingly supporters of Islamic terr their government situations
(06:55):
more stable than some other countries, but only to a point.
For these reasons, it is concerning anytime we're talking about war,
especially with potential nuclear implications involved with people who are
wired this way. On the other hand, Donald Trump is
no Joe Bidener for that matter, George W. Bush Now,
rather than US military intervention, prisident, Trump believes in the
(07:17):
use of economic needs to achieve policy objectives, and unlike
his predecessor, he's actually good at doing it. It was
no mistake that Donald Trump, during its first term, was
the only post World War II president to preside over
our time which there was not any escalation of conflict
anywhere in the world. That is his preferred position. He
was loud about this in Saudi Arabia again yesterday. And
(07:38):
while he's willing to use the full military capabilities of
the United States to achieve peace if needed, as we know,
he ascribes to the philosophy of peace through strength, and yes,
that means having a strong, incapable military, but it also
means having a strong and thriving economy that the rest
of the world needs to maintain their own economy. So
Trump isn't the only president to try to use the
(07:59):
economy to make Tanner a chief piece, but he has
been the most successful we've ever seen it. Deployment, for example,
the reason that Biden failed miserably to prevent the Russian
invasion of Ukraine through sanctions. Remember he said they're not
going to do it because we'll do all these sanctions,
and then Russia did it, and so he did sanctions,
(08:20):
and then Russia kept going and he did more and
it just never worked. The reason for that is if
Russia was like, we don't care. The only thing they
care about is how much they can sell their energy for.
And because of the war and also Biden inflation, oil
became a lot more pricey, and so they could sell
their oil for a lot more and they didn't care
if they weren't selling it to US or other places.
Speaker 2 (08:43):
They signed a deal with China.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
China would buy everything that Russia could produce, and in fact,
Russia became richer as a result of the war than
they had ever been before because China had this relationship
with them. And last year they set records. Russia set
records for what they did with China. So that's the
(09:05):
reason to fail. Trump doesn't play that game. What Trump
does when he is going to use economic means is like, look,
if we're going to target a country, if you're another
country that does business with that country, we're going to
tear if the heck out of you, or we're just
not going to do business with you, And that stops
them from going down that path. That's what's different here,
(09:26):
and that is effectively what Trump did and brokering the ceasefire,
it's like, look, you guys, don't cut this crap, then
you know we're going to use tariffs and you guys
are going to be starved out here. And so that
is the credibility that comes along with somebody who knows
what they're doing, and also is willing to deploy those means.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
And so I know.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
The skirmish, the history there, that's going to get better
anytime soon. But I am far less concerned about an
escalation with them than I would be if Biden were president,
for example, that's for sure,
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com